Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "Data centers and telcos in the Australian cities of Sydney and Brisbane have shut off external ventilation systems, restricted loading dock access and attended false alarms after a major dust storm choked the cities today. The storm is said to be the worst of its type ever recorded in Australia. Macquarie Telecom disengaged automatic deployment of fire-prevention gas from the fire alarm to prevent gas being released on a false alarm. Other major data center operators reported clogged air filters and heat exchangers and said they would be performing cleaning and maintenance operations this week."

You could taste it by about 11am (still can).
Water restrictions will be lifted for a few days to allow people to hose things down. Latest reports suggest there is a lesser dust storm due here by Saturday. Damn Kiwis are stealing our country by stealth!

I'm old enough to have clear memories of Melbourne's '83 dust storm, and the "rain" that came with it. It's one thing when the skies turn red, but when it rains as well, that's something else altogether. If you thought the images of Sydney yesterday were somewhat apocalyptic, imagine red mud falling from the sky. That's right folks - it was like it was raining blood! Seriously weird.

That's certainly how it felt. I was up at the crack of dawn and what an eerie red dawn it was. Never seen anything like it. It was interesting that earlier in the morning near dawn it was easier to capture the dust as it was stronger where I was.

Mind you it's nice and Sunny in Sydney today, so as usual this story's a little late.

Check this video of a 2007 Australian dust storm. [youtube.com] This one was smaller than the dust storm we had yesterday. Mostly made up from iron ore particles - apparently it's going to be really good for the ocean. I can still smell it, there is another dust storm due on Saturday.

The story isn't that late.
The dust has moved North, and while it isn't as bad as you guys had it yesterday, Cairns is covered in the stuff today.
I'm amazed it has moved 2500km (over 1500 miles) in such a short time and is still so noticeable, although for some reason it is not the red colour that Sydney had yesterday.

Lived here nearly 50yrs and the climate certainly has been fucked up for the last 10 of those. In particular I now consistently get a layer of dust on my car in Melbourne in winter time. That "Mars feeling" is a good description of what it was like in Melbourne a couple of summers ago, except it was smoke from bushfires that shrouded the city for almost a month, we've had smoke/dust in the past that lasted for a day or two but not every day for 4 weeks.

I wouldn't be so sure it is "climate" change.Weather does have cycles and anytime anything bad happens they blame climate change.I live in South Florida and we got hit by three hurricanes in two years. It had been many years since we had gotten hit. Those years where really bad years for storms and everybody screamed it was Global Warming.Well since then we have had below average seasons and no storms. Is global warming over?Actually good meteorologists said that it was part of the natural cycle and had not

What is funny is that you are trying to show me that this proves global warming.I actually do believe in global warming and in cutting carbon emissions. I think there is enough evidence that it is prudent to try and cut carbon output.But every time there is any bad weather global warming is the cause and not just bad weather.As I said good meteorologists where saying no this is just part of a natural cycle. The news and nutters where screaming global warming.But every stupid comment without proof is fuel fo

The thing is that there is a lot of debate about the effect of global warming on hurricanes even now.Hurricanes are heat engines. The difference in heat is what drives them. Some experts think that they will should get weaker with global warming since global warming has a bigger impact at the poles and less in the tropics so the temperature differential will be less.Others think that it will cause them to be stronger because there is just more energy in the system.Historically there seems to have been a lot

This [flickr.com] was posted on one of the Aussie mailing lists I'm a member of, absolutely sureal. Wish I could have seen it, bit of a drive from the West coast and I believe they were grounding planes at one point.

Yup, those pix are exactly what it was like. I too was up at the crack and wondered what that weird orange light was outside. it was only when i when upstairs to look out the windows (the downstairs window faces our neighbours wall (about 3m away) that i was totally amazed.

i ride a motorbike into the city each day from the hills district (about 30kms) and it was horrible, there was red dust everywhere. still tho' at about 0645 the traffic wasnt so bad, but my bike looked like i took it to the outback wh

The reporter who wrote the news article [itnews.com.au] says, "But all reported they had come out largely unscathed from the storm, one of the worst on record."

These worst-on-record, high-energy climatic phenomena -- hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, dust storms, etc. -- tell the real story of global warming. Burning fossil fuels emits energy into the atmosphere. Over a long period of time, that energy dissipates into the "cold" of outer space.

Over the past century, this injection of energy into the atmosphere was

A) it is not the worst on record at all, it is the worst in 20 years. There have been significantly worse dust storms in Australia over the past 200 years.
B) it is was NOT a high energy climatic phenomena, it is was the results of strong (but not excessive) winds over central Australia picking up the red dust, the prevailing winds happened to coincide nicely with this REGULAR outback phenomena to blow the cloud over major cities. This has about as much to do with global warming as a penguin farting in antarctica.

These worst-on-record, high-energy climatic phenomena -- hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, dust storms, etc. -- tell the real story of global warming. Burning fossil fuels emits energy into the atmosphere. Over a long period of time, that energy dissipates into the "cold" of outer space.

The energy of all human activity including burning fossil fuels is negligible. We can't measure its global effect on temperature. Carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas". That is, higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere cause the atmosphere to be more reflective to some degree to infra-red radiation (more accurately, it plugs some of the "holes" leftover from water vapor) in the frequency range that is emitted by both the surface and the lower atmosphere. As I understand it, that reduces the heat radiat

"As I understand it, that reduces the heat radiated to space and raises the temperature at ground level by a small amount."

Roughly one in every four CO2 molecules in the atmosphere has been put there by humans since the start of the industrial revolution, most of it in the last 50yrs.

CO2 absorbs IR radiated from the Earth and converts it into kinetic energy, after a certain time it will remit the energy as a phioton and slow down again.

This means that in the stratosphere where molecules are widely spaced the CO2 has a high chance of either escaping to space or remmiting a photon that escapes to space. Models (Hansen late 80's) predicted this would cause a cooling stratosphere and indeed sattelite mesurements have confirmed the predictions.

However in the bottom 5Km of atmosphere, where our weather takes place, the molecules are packed tighter and the CO2 is more likely to lose the kinetic energy by transfering it in a random collision with another molecule.

It's common for psuedo-skeptics such as Bob Carter to conflate the startosphere measurements with ground measurements in order to dishonestly push their adgenda.

"I haven't heard that the temperature increase over the past few centuries is sufficient enough to cause dramatically more energetic weather. Natural variation is instead probably responsible for these extremes. Well that and the media's sudden interest in extreme weather phenomena."

The jury is still out on observations of more severe weather but fundementally more heat means more turbulence. I don't think anyone knows how significant that extra turbulence might turn out to be but natural variation on top of the AGW trend is almost certainly feeding the seemingly constant rewriting of record books.

This means that in the stratosphere where molecules are widely spaced the CO2 has a high chance of either escaping to space or remmiting a photon that escapes to space. Models (Hansen late 80's) predicted this would cause a cooling stratosphere and indeed sattelite mesurements have confirmed the predictions.

Sorry, but I didn't get why the stratosphere would cool since a) CO2 is absorbing more energy than otherwise would be absorbed, making the layer more energetic, and b) that energy eventually escapes to space anyway. Perhaps the problem is that I'm just thinking of the stratosphere in strictly distance terms. After all, the stratosphere is a phase change in the atmosphere not a particular height above sea level.

This means that in the stratosphere where molecules are widely spaced the CO2 has a high chance of either escaping to space or remmiting a photon that escapes to space. Models (Hansen late 80's) predicted this would cause a cooling stratosphere and indeed sattelite mesurements have confirmed the predictions.

The thing is the record books would be constantly rewritten anyway. Most places have at most a cen

I think you answered your own question with b), as I understand it if the molecule/atom leaves earth it not only takes the aborbed IR with it but also the larger initial kinectic energy the atom/molecule had before it absorbed the IR.

As I understand it, if the molecule/atom leaves earth it not only takes the aborbed IR with it but also the larger initial kinectic energy the atom/molecule had before it absorbed the IR. It's probably a fucked up analogy but the way I think of it is that the molecule leaving lowers the pressure ever so slighly*, temprature follows pressure.

*Slight, but the entire atmosphere will escape before the Sun swallows us.

The dust/topsoil has nothing to do with global warming, it is all about farmers ploughing up their fields without keeping a close eye on weather forecasts (can be tricky), or failing to shift to more modern farming techniques http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-till_farming [wikipedia.org]. Sticking them with a fine, especially the large globally owned corporate farms might put an end to these man made storms.

Oddly enough when it comes to green house impact these topsoil storms reduce global warming as they add necessary tr

I'd say the more plausible explanation for this one is that extensive rains earlier in the year over the Lake Eyre basin resulted in fine silt being deposited over the thousands of square kilometres of floodplains as the water made its way over months towards the lake. The floods have gone and the silt has dried up then been picked up by an unusually big gust of wind that has carried it further than it normally would.

Anyone who's spent some time out bush would have encountered at least one dust storm before

If you know this is coming, get extra air filters, use the absolute kind (like 3M Filtrete [3m.com]), and be prepared to change them frequently.
With absolute filters, the filters will gradually stop letting air through as they clog, so you
must inspect them regularly or have clogged-filter sensors. The usual fibreglas filters don't
even try to stop 100% of the particles above the filter's size limit, but they tend to still pass
air even when clogged, so neglecting them doesn't stop airflow.

And use duct tape to fix any leaks around the filters.

Now that the US has been operating in the sandbox for years now, keeping gear going during sandstorms is well understood.

If I may refine your point, rather than the "off the shelf" 3M filters, for a Data Center, you'll want to get something like this [nordicpure.com], or a comparable filter with a MERV Rating [furnacefiltercare.com] of at least 13 in order to prevent and control contamination. It is generally a good idea to be using these types of filters as SOP in Data Center CRAC Units.

Climate change is a farce.
im a sydneysider, this is the worst duststorm we've had in 70 years, IE: 70 years ago, it was this bad. It's the first year of el nino, the ground is going to be dry, it happens.
its also not the worst dustorm in the country, the 1984 one in melbourne was worse.
the arctic icecap is melting too, curiously in line with the friggin range of underwater volcanoes spewing hot magma into the ocean.

Usually when I see someone spouting off, there's at least some argument that can be rebutted, some point that can be countered, some claim that can be disproved or, at least, some myth that can be dispelled. I read this post, over and over, trying to find some way to respond in an intelligent manner, to try to get across a point about this subject that I feel so strongly about. However, try as I might, the only response I could come up with was this:OMGWTFLOLHAHA.

As the drought extended into 1945, large rivers virtually dried up. By December 1944 the Hunter had ceased to flow along most of its course; by January the Hawkesbury was dry at North Richmond. By April 1945, most Victorian water storages were empty, the Murray had ceased to flow at Echuca, and Adelaide faced water shortages. As far north as Townsville here were water restrictions. Dust storms raged in South Australia, northern Victoria and southern NSW on many days in the summer of 1944-45

I don't know about you, but that's not something I'd like to experience with the current population of Australia. If there's some part of cutting CO2 output that would help avoid such a situation, I'll gladly sign up for it.

Today due to climate changes effects on the ocean currents, El Ninyo could quite possibly become permanent [springerlink.com] rather than a periodic event - which if happens, will freeze eastern Australia in a permanent drought conditions (and South America in permanent flooding conditions). A bit of drought in half of Australia and a few major floods in South America would be the very least of the worlds worries though... climate change screwing up the ocean current system is implicated in the Anoxic event [wikipedia.org] which eventually led to the death of 90% of life on earth [wikipedia.org]

>Climate change is a farce. im a sydneysider, this is the worst duststorm we've had in 70 yearsNo worries mate, the planet will be just fine. Nothing we can do to the planet short of complete nuclear Armageddon that Mother earth can't recover from in a few million years. Its not the planet we have to worry about... its our survival on it as a destructive, greedy, self serving species - and that's just a random sampling of our "elected" leaders [wikipedia.org]

Take a large quantity of the very dangerous liquid, DHMO [dhmo.org]. Have a Liquid DHMO - (80%) Nitrogen Gas boundary in a chamber. The person taking the test must pass through the DHMO-Nitrogen boundary and travel between the two safe zones. If any (non major) body part makes contact with, or passes through the boundary layor then it is likely to require amputation. Breathing near the boundary layor is likely to kill. Breathing in the DHMO liquid is lik

Give me a break. Of course climate change is happening. Look at California, Spain, Greece, and other places. They are turning into deserts. Year after year more fires, and more arid. It is changing the land at a local level. Other places like Canada are get more tornado's and they are getting more tail ends of hurricanes.

The question of whether or not it is man made in my opinion is quite irrelevant since we don't even have plan regardless of the cause. The big issue right now is how

Living in California, I'd have to say that the "more fires" thing isn't JUST climate change; it's also a result of overgrowth. Fires burn out the vegetated areas, and they regrow. Every year it doesn't, the danger grows higher (I was temporarily displaced by this one [google.com] actually). The San Joaquin valley, though...that's probably turning into a desert, and probably for the same reason as the dust bowl.

Well lets look at reality now shall we? See in the last 150 years we've had amazing improvements in the ability to see and record weather events. Now, where I'm from Ontario, even in the last 10 years if a tornado happened in the middle of nowhere Northern Ontario and no one was around to hear it, it didn't happen. These days it's hit or miss. In the southern half, meaning south of Ottawa, we get anywhere between 20-45 a year. Which is pretty average and has been average.

Southern California, Spain and Greece have always had a tendency to be arid. It's one of the reasons why California and Spain in particular have such great wine country. They're certainly not turning into deserts. The reason why people are noticing it more is because more people are living out there. More people are putting more strain on local resources and there are more people around to notice conditions. When fires happen, for example, people notice because it's their property being destroyed and certai

Look at California, Spain, Greece, and other places. They are turning into deserts.

I won't comment on "Spain, Greece, and other places", but much of California IS a desert, and always has been.

LA, San Diego, most of southern California can exist as they do because humans diverted virtually the entire Colorado river and the entire snowmelt in the southern Rockies to making it the environment you consider "normal".

Fact is, the real California climate is semi-arid at best until you get up toward the Bay area

The "real climate" of the Bay Area latitudes is semi-arid once you get away from the coast and over a range of hills or two. It's what they call a "Mediterranean climate" -- cool rainy winters, arid hot summers, rain on the windward side of the mountains only.

No, farcical is believing an obvious lie such as the claim that an active super volcano is melting either or both poles.

Also you haven't defined "worst dustorm"? - I would assume TFA is measuring the duststorm by the area it covered. In which case this one would be the "worst" of the two since it streached from South Australia to Queensland where as the 1984 one (that I experienced as it rolled over Bairnsdale) only covered Victoria and parts of NSW / S.Australia, at a rough guess that's about 1/4 of the area.

"It's the first year of el nino, the ground is going to be dry"

El Nino has not kicked in yet and it is NOT forecast to do so this year [bom.gov.au], this dust has accumulated [bom.gov.au] under El Nina conditions. When ENSO does in fact flip to El Nino conditions the ground is going to get even dryer than it already is.

Did you (while reading up on non-existant volcanos), fail to notice that the majority of Aussies are living with strict water rationing laws? Are you unaware that practically all the state capitals in the country are frantically pouring billion$ into building some of the largest desal plants on the planet? Have you not noticed that most aussie grain harvests over the last 10yrs have seen a 50-60% drop in size when compared to pre 1990 averages? Is there not a giant scar on the Victorian bush from what was an upnprecedented firestorm (I say this having wittnessed first hand all three major fires in living memeory, 2009, 1984 & 1968(?) ). Are the hydro plants in Tassie not silent due to lack of water in their recently completed dams? Is Melbourne currently not at it's lowest winter water reserves on record?

Please also explain to us (without invoking invisable volcanos) why an entire forrest of 600yo river red gums has not survived this particular drought, when according to you conditions have been much worse at various times in the last century or so.

Like some of the other replies, I really have no explaination for why people post bullshit like the steaming pile in your post, is it attempted gallows humor? Are you paid?

As I said in another post land abuse is the root cause, AGW is the straw that broke the sheeps back. Massive cotton farms and over allocation of irrigation rights have absolutely nothing to do with immigration.

El Nino has not kicked in yet and it is NOT forecast to do so this year [bom.gov.au], this dust has accumulated [bom.gov.au] under El Nina conditions. When ENSO does in fact flip to El Nino conditions the ground is going to get even dryer than it already is.

As evidence to the contrary, the NOAA is predicting [noaa.gov] that the El Niño effect most likely WILL kick in during Northern Hemisphere winter 09-10.

Synopsis: El Niño is expected to strengthen and last through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2009-201

"Did you know that the Mitchell has flooded three times in the last decade?"

Yes, that's why the valley is chock full of highly productive market gardens not to mention the vast coastal lake system that would putrify without it's inflows as has already happened to the lakes in S Autralia. As for your other links please don't conflate ludites, animal rights actisits and environmentalists as one group marching in lockstep for obviously flawed crusades.

It's been this bad 70 years ago.70 years ago we didn't pollute ANYWHERE as much as we do today.If our polluting nature is supposed to be the cause for climate change, which would then lead to, say, DUSTSTORMS, how come the same thing happened when we had barely begun the polluting?

Climate change is real. It happened since the beginning of this dirtball. The question is, how much of what we see today is natural and how much is man-made. Considering that they also found that CO2 rises came after our atmosphere warming up and not before, I'd like for you to give me a few examples of shut down points in favour of us not having much to do with the situation.

It's easy to say "Everyone KNOWS that your arguments won't hold up". But have the common decency to prove it instead of making blanket statements about our intelligence.

I am fucking fed up with this behaviour. Time and again, people had to lower their eyes in shame after they had made fun of others for their outrageously unpopular statements and then being proven wrong after all. How can any sane and halfway intelligent being continue doing that when none of us have any kind of insight into the bigger picture? Have you ever checked which scientists have proclaimed human induced climate change? Have you checked their work? Have you checked their numbers? Their conclusions? Have you checked whether their institutes are low on cash and just freaking needed the publicity?

Same goes for any opponents of human induced climate change, by the way. Same rules for all of us. The difference between you and me is that I don't call you stupid just because you have a different opinion than I have. All I call you is frickin' rude.

(I'm not saying it isn't true, but in the west at least it seems we have been trying to cut down on our emissions, and I don't have any data comparing emissions from power plants, factories, cars, shuttle launches etc etc over the last century).

In the 1940s, air pollution received greater attention in the United States when smog was noticed in Los Angeles. Visibility was only three blocks and people suffered from smarting eyes, respiratory discomfort, nausea, and vomiting. California passed the first state air pollution law in 1947, and the first National Air Pollution Symposium in the United States was held in 1949. Initially, municipal governments were responsible for the passage and enforcement of such legislation.

Being a devil's advocate to a devil's advocate is a nasty job, you have to contradict yourself all the time just to prove your point.

Seriously though, I do agree not everyone makes informed statements and just blast their opinions, however I have read scientific journals on both sides that do put up a great argument for both sides...hence why so many people are just on the fence about this one.

I hope that all this hoopla is propaganda, and that climate change is natural and nothing man made, however I would

Adelaide is semi arid. Always has, always will. Build desal and be done with it.
(coming from someone who grew up in Adelaide for 26 years, then got the hell out before Adelaideism nearly robbed me of my ambition)

Could not help thinking of this Tom Waits song on the drive home yesterday...

Well it's hotter 'n blazes and all the long faces
there'll be no oasis for a dry local grazier
there'll be no refreshment for a thirsty jackaroo
from Melbourne to Adelaide on the overlander
with newfangled buffet cars and faster locomotives
the train stopped in Serviceton less and less often
There's nothing sadder than a town with no cheer
VicRail decided the canteen was no longer necessary
there's no spirits, no bilgewater an

There was a convention of brewers held at the Revolting Restaurant at the top of the Wrest Point hotel. Naturally at such a corporate piss-up, there was a bit of posturing going on. The head of Heineken ordered a Heineken, the CEO of Carlsberg ordered an Elephant, the head of Fosters grimaced and ordered a Fosters Lager, the chief of Budweiser ordered a can of their sex in a canoe, the guy from Brew 102 hid behind a cardboard cutout of himself holding a black and white can, and so on down the line it went

I've seen a few of them, that one look like the early 80's in Melbourne, this one covered a much wider area, and yes they do look awesome until they roll over your house but not as menacing as the 15km high smoke plume on black saturday.